Pocahontas Residents Express Concerns on New Sites for Wastewater Treatment Facility

Since the use of eminent domain of the Sharp farm in Slatyfork for a proposed wastewater treatment facility was taken off the table by the Pocahontas County Commission at its April meeting, three new sites are now being investigated.

Throngs of concerned citizens filled the Beckwith Lumber Co. community center in Slatyfork last week for what was thought to be a special Pocahontas County Public Service District meeting to discuss the three alternative sites.

Though the alternative sites were discussed, the meeting was downgraded by Scott Millican, PSD secretary to an off-the-record, no-minutes-taken public forum.

In his presentation on alternative wastewater treatment facility locations, Ken Moran of Thrasher Engineering briefly outlined four major categories that would be studied in the process of finding a new location for the controversial proposed sewer plant.

Those categories include the following:

— A sub-surface investigation conducted by H.C. Nutting Geo-Technical and Dr. Henry Roush, Ph.D., from the University of West Virginia; bedrock mapping, flood plain analysis conducted by Marshall Miller Associates; and resistivity imagining.

— Flood plain analysis conducted by Marshall Miller Associates to estimate the base of the 100-year flood elevation on a pre-developed site; estimate relative change after development; and give an opinion whether or not the plant should be build on the site.

— Culture and history investigation conducted by Horizon Research Consultants that includes a background investigation for culture and history resources on each site and any Phase I or Phase II reports that may be required on each site.

— Capital and operational cost estimates by Thrasher Engineering to estimate total project cost for each alternative site; collection, transmission and treatment costs associated with each site; and operational and maintenance costs.

According to Moran, site No. 5 is located on State Rail Authority property on the confluence of Old Field Fork and Big Spring Fork at the head of the Elk River.

Site No. 6 is located, about two miles south of Lynwood. Site No. 7 is located on the road going up to Snowshoe on Snowshoe property.

The alternative site locations drew many comments from the public including the flooding issues at all sites, and questions were raised regarding maintenance of the plant during a flooding event.

Moran continued with a description of proposed facilities and systems at each site

The list of those wishing to give their comments, voice their concerns or ask questions was lengthy and ran the gamut from retro-fitting the existing plant at Snowshoe, justifying the cost of a new regional plant, membrane technology, environmental dangers and a myriad of other issues.

Leading off the comment period was Rod Molidor, owner of the Morning Glory Inn on U.S. 219 in Slatyfork, which is located directly across the street from site No. 6.

“I vehemently oppose the site,” Molidor said. “It will destroy my business and property values. It doesn’t belong in a residential neighborhood; it doesn’t belong in this nice valley.

“We all know this is for Snowshoe,” Molidor said. “Don’t try to convince me or anyone else here that this is for Slatyfork. This is so Snowshoe can develop farther so the fat cats can get fatter.

“The money goes to New York and Fortress,” Molidor said, “and Slatyfork is left with used toilet paper and the smell.”

In his comment to those representing the project, Commissioner Martin Saffer said, “I would hope you would consider this not as a question of site, not an engineering question, but a question about what this community wants for itself now and in the future.

“I implore you to look at those issues and not whether this site or that site is good or bad from an engineering point of view,” Saffer said. “Look at it from the point of view of your lives and your community.”

Also attending the meeting were representatives of various environmental and conservation groups.

Larry Orr, chairman of West Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited, read from a letter urging the PSD to review the public comments and questions regarding the alternative site evaluations.

Orr also stated WVCTU would work in conjunction with the PSD and other conservation groups to find long-term solutions for all parties involved.

“I hope in moving forward looking at alternative sites, we are looking at the big picture which includes the karst aquifer, which is a very complex geological and hydrological unit,” said Eight Rivers Safe Development Inc. President George Phillips. “Making sure proper environmental assessments are done for any of the options.”

Phillips cited the problems that were encountered on the Sharp farm and indicated there were the same potential issues with site No. 6.

“We’re doing something different here, we’re introducing 500,000 to a million and a half gallons a day of raw sewage into the valley, and that needs to be considered in an environmental assessment, because of the consequences of a failure,” Phillips said.

“There’s been a lot of misinformation about failing septic systems in the valley,” one resident said. “I’d like to ask anyone, the PSD and anyone else that’s been along with this project from the beginning, why our leg is being pulled and why we are being lied to about failing septic systems, why we have been pushed into this project to begin with when the valley does not need this system.”

The comment was agreed with by many citizens but unanswered by those associated with the project.

The matter of property owned by the Kramer family that had been purchased by Big Springs LLC, created a stir when it was revealed that the real buyer was Snowshoe Mountain Corp.

According to Dreama Kramer, SSMC President Bill Rock called them the day after the sale to say Snowshoe bought the property and that was where they would put the sewer plant.

“Why would Snowshoe purchase another piece of property under false pretenses when they already owned one of the sites where they could put the plant,” a resident asked.

No explanation was given, though J.D. Morgan of Snowshoe indicated it was not an unusual practice for one entity to represent another, especially in a case like this, where the sellers may have raised the price if they had known Snowshoe was the buyer.

When asked by Tom Shipley, of the Sharp farm, if he was involved in the purchase, County Commission President James Carpenter said he was involved with the purchase only to the extent he had met with PSD board member Mark Smith and Snowshoe and their engineers to try to find a piece of property that would be suitable for the plant without the use of eminent domain.

“Snowshoe said there was a piece of property for sale and if it would help they would buy it,” Carpenter said.

Carpenter said he didn’t ask Snowshoe to buy the property, but he was happy they did because it took eminent domain off the table on the Sharp farm.

“If none of these three sites work,” Carpenter said, “we will find another site that will please everyone in this community. I think we need a regional sewer plant. I think we are going to have to have a plant in this valley that will accommodate everybody.”

Showing pictures of flooding at the sites, Shipley posed the question of maintaining the plant during a flooding event; he also cited pump failures, karst failures, pipe infiltrations and structure failures as some of the major concerns.

“Why burden people with these risks?” Shipley asked. “We can find a regional solution to our current and future needs, it does not have to be a big giant collection plant.”

Tolly Peuleche, an Elk Headwaters Association representative, and other residents raised concerns about pharmaceutical residue in the treated water.

According to Shipley, sub-surface technology systems will prevent viruses and pharmaceuticals from entering streams, because they remain contained in the system.

“As a community we were asleep at the wheel through the whole first part of this process,” Gil Willis said. “I expected Snowshoe, the County Commission and the state of West Virginia to look out for our best interests, but that’s not the case.”

Willis said he thought the DEP was not doing its job in what was ultimately its responsibility. “They don’t care; they are not enforcing the law here locally,” Willis said.

“I don’t believe people have been asked if they want or need this sewer plant,” Ralph Beckwith said. “I think the plant should be on Snowshoe property.”

“We haven’t heard any justification for a regional plant,” Dale Leatherman of Snowshoe said. “Other than it would be very easy to have homeowners pay what should be the responsibility of developers.”

“I’m not sure building a regional plant is the answer,” she added.

Though many of the questions asked were not addressed, many people attending the meeting indicated they appreciated finally having the opportunity to voice their concerns.